Schllc

Human nature is what it is, and it will never change. I think every generation starts out thinking that their technology and advancement makes them more enlightened, and while this may be true in many areas, with regard to human behavior, it will never change because one must gather experience to comprehend. Legal plunder is what we are living under and it is proving to be quite punishing.

I don’t think you are as far apart from @T. Peterson as you may think. what I hear him saying is rooted in these types of writings give it a listen https://podcasts.apple.com/us/podcast/the-law/id1759998666?i=1000663696988

Very well stated.

You mention leaving some items in the panel, and I thought it worth mentioning that while it is of course more money, and I don’t mean to trivialize that, but….. if you put the plane down and tear into the panel, you should really consider stretching and doing everything at once. It will be the most economical and efficient way to have the plane set until the next generation. if you do it in pieces you will pay for many things to be redone, and your plane will be down a lot longer. I had a functional but old panel in the plane I did my upgrades in, and I actually ended up getting close to 20k selling all the old stuff. Just some unsolicited advice, that is worth what you paid for it… best of luck!

This prop is being removed from service on a 2007 Acclaim, no damage history with complete logs. The prop was disassembled, resealed, and painted in 2016. Comes with a chrome spinner. boots for TKS. Paint shows its age, but the blades are in very good condition Removing to install a four blade MT prop, the prop will be located in San Marcos at a MSC so they can do the install as well. I am not exactly sure how to price it, but if I can’t get this for the prop I will likely just overhaul it and keep it as a spare. I do know what they cost new… Im asking $10,500 I will be installing the new prop in early February, and it will be available immediately after. I can email copies of the logs if someone is interested.

this is a curious number for me. if you look at the FAA website there is about 180k registered pistons in the US. If you use this website it says that in 2020 there was 412k gal per day. if you divide that by the fleet, and divide that by an average of 15gph that is 55 hours per plane on average per year. I suppose it could be true, but that sounds awfully optimistic considering 30k are experimental/light sport, and all the hangar queens... i wonder how much is law enforcement and military

You appear to really want this plane so let me say this. If this is the one that scratches your itch go for it. You may get burned, but the odds are against that with the history you describe. will it have its unique challenges? Absolutely! But that’s ok too. An airplane, for most ga pilots anyway I hope, it’s a romantic adventure as well. A plane is an expensive and completely discretionary purchase. If you do not love it, you will resent its demands. So if this one is calling to you, buy it and enjoy the experience.

This is very true, but it’s also likely the first place they visit when looking for help with an obscure Mooney issue or part. That is how I found mooneyspace…

^^^^^^^^^This!!!^^^^^^^^^ If you pee into the ocean, you have technically raised sea levels.

@George Braly I for one appreciate your participation in this forum and willingness to enter the debate. the challenge as an airplane owner is the repercussions for having “old paint” and “old sealant”, are not trivial The consequences for the experiment have a significant downside. I am actually planning a paint job and Craig with scheme designers has told me that he is going to start a thread with you and Sherwin Williams regarding this issue. the last thing I want to see is a sealant and paint failure after a major investment in painting an aircraft. I have no idea what is involved with dealing with FAA approval for something as significant as a new fuel but it cannot be easy, pleasant, or cheap and I commend your efforts. I just don’t want to be a guinea pig to see how it works out. I’m thankful that there a plenty of others willing to roll the dice.

I served on a local county board which helped evaluate changes related to our industry and make recommendations to our country commissioners. one of the issues was staff wanted to require use of a a new type of back flow preventer called an RPZ instead of the double backflow. The latter being what has always been used, and they wanted to require a new one that they claimed was safer. During one of the meetings when I was questioning the requirement, I pointed out the problems with the new type which in some instances would require a building owner to spend upwards of a million dollars to upgrade. i had researched this issue extensively prior to the public meeting so I knew the answer to my question prior to asking. When I started pointing out all of the pitfalls of the new requirement, one of the staff suggested that if a baby died because of contaminated water, it would be on my head. Which was the perfect opening for my question which was… How many documented failures of the old back flow preventer had occurred, and as a result how many of those caused illness or death? As his face turned purple he claimed he didn’t know the answer, to which I replied well I do! The answer was zero! It had never happened. The bureaucrats had made the rule already and imposed it on more than a few residents and it had to be rescinded. The moral to the story is that while there is no argument that lead is bad for us to ingest or be exposed to, the actual danger is poses as a byproduct of fuel consumption is more difficult to quantify. It isn’t as if aviation exhaust is being pumped into schools. But the “save the children argument” is foisted and everyone’s hair is on fire. That being said, high pressure direct injection, and electronic ignition on engines would render this point moot, so if the FAA and EPA were actually interested in efficacy and an actual solution, they would get the f*$& out of the way and let some real progress In engine technology occur, rather than stifling innovation. I am of the opinion that the indirect mission of the FAA is to purge GA from existence, so endlessly harping on lead is much easier than admitting they want the whole mode of travel to go away. It’s a war of attrition with your own money being confiscated and used against you. government at its finest

Well, damage to fuel tank sealant is a show stopper. im not putting a drop of that in my tanks until its ready.

That is a clever design, but I would never pull the cowling without three strips of painters tape on the body directly behind the cowling. look at 4/5 (long bodies at least), and you will see why.

Even an annual can be misleading. The plane I recently purchased had what I would classify as incompetent maintenance. They didn’t do any SB’s, a lot of things done improperly, and a lot of things well out of spec. Original landing pucks from 2006, original brake fluid, original mags one of which has never been overhauled, the list is not short. Same 3 or 4 shops did all his annuals, none of them mooney’s service centers.

Setting realistic expectations will make all the difference in the world when walking into a big project like that. Had they told me 17 months and I had accepted it prior to beginning, it would have been a lot less stressful. I absolutely believe a project can take 5-6 weeks of actual manpower, and if everything is planned, ordered and or available it could be done in that timeframe. But if a shop told me that with confidence I would still be pretty skeptical. It not usually all their fault, sometimes it’s a quality or elective issue. The market and regulations play a large role in your options as well. Once your plane is in 1,000 pieces of the floor of the hangar, what are you going to do? It’s not worth litigation unless you have enough money, time and will(masochism) to hold to the principle. Having it moved isn’t a real good option, and no one else can really work in someone else’s shop etc etc. Whatever someone, anyone tells you, just multiply that by three to five times and set that as your expectation. This way if it happens on time, you hit the lotto, enjoy it. And when it doesn't, you will be prepared and may even be able to leverage a few freebies as a concession. I’m really not criticizing or busting anyone’s chops. It’s just something that should be baked into the formula because it is not the exception, it’s the rule. This would apply to any major upgrade/repair/alteration, not just avionics. I firmly believe it is going to get a lot worse, and a lot more expensive for a while anyway. There is no generation of people aspiring to work in these trades, much less in the pipeline training. While that may sound cynical, it isn’t really meant to be, just stressing the importance of proper expectations. These are large and discretionary decisions, it can be pleasant if it goes the way you expected….

After watching that YouTube video I can’t believe this didn’t come up in gami’s testing. that experiment is damning. I have zero interest in using g100ul until they resolve this issue.

@sandeepdutta This is probably one of the better deals out there for a k right now. This plane was the first Mooney I ever logged hours. It was owned for a long time by an instructor that I know and was well cared for. he sold it a few years ago and the new owners did some significant upgrades. im not sure why its hasn’t sold yet, I think it could be had in the 165 range and has all the big stuff done. Paint scheme isnt thrilling, but it’s clean, well kept, low time engine, intercooler, Merlyn waste gate and a gfc500 https://www.trade-a-plane.com/search?category_level1=Single+Engine+Piston&make=MOONEY&model=M20K+231&listing_id=2428328&s-type=aircraft

I don’t disagree with this. Ironically, they never even asked me what the part they were making was for. That being said, most people not involved in aviation are unaware of the challenges and limitations.

Years ago I bought this really high end Italian oscillating belt sander. It worked really well for a few years and then the oscillating part stopped working. I took the machine apart and found this helical worm gear made of bronze. I hunted for the company only to find out they had gone out of business years ago and if I couldn’t get the gear the machine was scrap. Well, a new machine of this size and quality was over 20k so I started looking… I ended up finding a shop in Columbia (the country) that would to produce the part for $75. I ordered three of them and zip tied them into the machine near the gears… I’ve used one more set of them and apparently this was a part designed to wear to spare the more expensive parts. sorry for the tangent but my ocd required me to complete the story… point being, I’m not going to retire any machine I own for some part that I know I can figure out a way to replace. I understand there are some things on the plane like a turbo housing, or a crank that are far too complex and critical to produce yourself, but the FAA treats too many things as critical, that just are not so on our little planes. Good machinists all pride themselves on being able to do complicated things, and they are extremely knowledgeable about metal and its properties, those gears are not that hard to manufacture, and I’m willing to bet if you knocked on enough machine shop doors you would find somebody willing to make them.

I read an interesting little anecdote in a shop the other day… ”every 20 minute job is one broken nut away from a three day nightmare”.

It doesn’t take much, looks like all boost was gone with 28-30” being atmospheric pressure at sea level. I had a loose hose clamp and split boot and that’s all it took to lose boost in mine. I fixed the hose clamp and had full on the ground, but when I went up above 7 I couldn’t hold full MP. it takes less than you think.

It could be an induction leak, it’s harder to find at the higher pressures, but check all of your clamps and hoses. I have no idea what the setup is on a 210, but I have had to chase these before on my io-540-s1a5 and it can be a little from multiple locations or a lot from one or all the above. Start with the easy obvious places first, hose clamps. how do you check the relief valve?

Cfis and ferry pilots are generally unconcerned with the health of the engine beyond their time in the plane. I flew with a cfi in my ovation from 7 hours until I completed my ifr. beyond the conversation of take off full power, and my approach speeds, he never once had a conversation with regard to power settings or operating ranges. I dont want to impugn all Cfi’s, I have had some very good ones, but they are human. After 30 years of employees and watching how they care for things they don’t have to pay for, it has made me a bit cynical, and a lot more aware of human nature. What I have gleaned from my limited experience, and from this forum is that there are ranges unique to each engine that you absolutely need to know to stay out of, and the rest will be determined by trial and error, your mission, your altitudes, and your own unique plane. the poh is a good starting point but others who share your setup, who have been flying it for years, and your experimentation will help you find the optimum place for you to fly.

Someone spent a whole lot of money on that Cardinal. In my experience, no airplanes do “book numbers” in cruise. Most doesn’t even make book, but may get real close if you are wringing it out and flying it like you stole it. That being said. The relative embellishments of them all still make them more or less accurate in comparison. Aviation is completely discretionary, and it’s expensive, so why not just get what you want? I would be willing to bet any turbo Mooney is faster than that cardinal at the same altitude and fuel flow. So for the sake of discussion let’s just say the cardinal is 10kts slower. On a 500mile trip that’s only about a 15min difference. 500/160= 3.125 hours. 500/150=3.333 hours That is not worth buying a plane you don’t like. I do say do the math on gpm as well as gph though, it can make a big difference in considering fuel burn. And as @dkkim73 said, using a conserver is a game changer for o2, or it was for me. I think if you compare apples to apples in appointments, age, engine time avionics etc, you get more bang for your buck with a Mooney. But as others have said, everything is a trade off, and the money is not the only factor.

The “averages” in my humble opinion are somewhat questionable, as to the conclusivity. There are entirely too many permutations to really qualify what you are comparing. I have seen oil samples that had 5 hours since an oil change, and 120 hours since an oil change. An engine with 40 years smoh with 300 hours, and 2 years smoh with 1500 hours. Is the plane flown 15 minutes in the pattern a month, or does it take 4 hour cross countries twice a week, is it sitting in the ramp in key west, or is it in an air conditioned hangar in the Mojave desert? Is the engine burning oil at 1 qt per 4 hours of flight or no oil? What goes into the formula to derive these averages has a lot less value without these qualifications. This isn’t to say there is no value, but unless you have consistent records over time on the engine in question, or there are obvious signs of catastrophic failure, the results are more conjecture than fact.